Get Goal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (name, status, notes, owner, etc.), which is useful for understanding output. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors such as pagination or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return field list and a pointer to the sibling list tool. Every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-by-ID read operation, the description is complete. It specifies the input (GID), the output details (returned fields), and how to obtain the GID (via asana_get_goals). The annotations cover the read-only and idempotent nature. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing return fields. No additional context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (goal_gid and opt_fields), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by GID' reinforces the primary parameter but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. The opt_fields parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema covers it adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details for a goal by GID.' It specifies the resource (goal), the key identifier (GID), and differentiates from the list tool (asana_get_goals) by describing the 'full details' retrieval. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly directs the user to asana_get_goals for listing goals and finding GIDs, providing a clear alternative for the discovery phase. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus its sibling list operation. The context is concise and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.